[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
1 W.P. No. 23561/2021
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 23561 of 2021
ANIL MATHUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Ayushman Choudhary - Government Advocate.
0Reserved on :- 17.02.2026
Post on :- 23.02.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure P/22) issued by Respondent No. 3,
and the consequential order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P/25) issued
by Respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 3,86,337/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty-Six
Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven Only) towards the alleged loss
of 3,064 books from the library of Government B.K.S.N. Post
Graduate College, Shajapur.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Librarian on an ad-
hoc basis on 06.03.1986. He was transferred to Government B.K.S.N.
PG College, Shajapur in the year 1995. His services were regularized
with effect from 19.06.2000, and he was subsequently granted the
senior grade pay scale with effect from 01.04.2011, establishing his
status as a Class-I Gazetted Officer. Upon taking charge of the library
at the Shajapur College on 04.08.2000, the petitioner received 15,373
books out of a total of 25,484 books from the preceding Librarian.
3. By an order dated 15.06.2015, the petitioner was transferred to
Government College, Kalapipal, District Shajapur, and was relieved
on 29.06.2015. However, at the time of his relieving, he was not
apprised as to whom he should hand over the charge of the library. It
is a matter of record that between August 2015 and September 2019,
the petitioner visited Government B.K.S.N. PG College, Shajapur on
numerous specific occasions to hand over the complete charge of the
library to various designated individuals. Specifically, the petitioner
visited the college to tender the charge from 07.08.2015 to
12.08.2015; 24.08.2015 to 27.08.2015; 22.09.2015 to 24.09.2015;
10.03.2016 to 19.03.2016; 23.09.2016 to 04.10.2016; on 22.05.2017;
from 01.06.2017 to 02.06.2017; in August 2017; from 26.12.2017 to
27.12.2017; on 03.01.2018; on 08.01.2018; from 01.02.2018 to
07.02.2018; in December 2018; from 01.02.2019 to 22.02.2019; and
finally from 20.09.2019 to 25.09.2019. Despite these repeated visits
and earnest efforts by the petitioner, the charge of the library was not
taken from him by the respondents during this prolonged period.
4. Ultimately, pursuant to official orders, the petitioner was
relieved from his current posting to hand over the charge in segments
during 2020. On 18.07.2020, the petitioner handed over the complete
charge of the library, encompassing 42,747 books, to Respondent No.
5 under the acknowledgment of Respondent No. 4. Consequently, a
"No Dues Certificate" was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2020,
itself. Thereafter, on 10.08.2021 and 23.09.2021, the impugned orders
were issued directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,86,337/- towards
the alleged loss of 3,064 books.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned
orders have been issued without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the
recovery of pecuniary loss is a minor penalty under the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Since the
petitioner is a Class-I Gazetted Officer, such a penalty can only be
imposed by the appointing or disciplinary authority. Respondent Nos.
2 and 3, being merely In-charge Principals, lack the statutory
competence to issue the recovery orders.
6. It is further urged that the impugned orders are in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. No show-cause notice
was issued, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, and no enquiry
was conducted to establish any negligence or breach of orders by the
petitioner before fastening the financial liability. The petitioner also
emphasized that he received the charge of only 15,373 books in the
year 2000 and successfully handed over the charge of 42,747 books in
the year 2020. Having received a clear "No Dues Certificate" upon
handing over the charge under due acknowledgment, the respondents
cannot arbitrarily hold him liable for an alleged deficit more than a
year later. Furthermore, calculating the recovery amount by
multiplying the cost of the books by one and a half time is wholly
arbitrary and without application of mind.
7. Per contra, the stand of the respondents, as reflected in their
reply, is that the petitioner retained the charge of the post of Librarian
at Government B.K.S.N. PG College, Shajapur from 1995 until 2020.
Being the Librarian, he is solely accountable for the maintenance of
the library articles, and any loss occurring during this tenure entails
liability that cannot be waived. The respondents assert that the deficit
of 3,064 books was calculated not from the initial 25,484 books, but
from a total count of 44,855 books. The recovery amount of Rs.
3,86,337/- was calculated at 1.5 times the cost of the respective books,
strictly in accordance with the rules applied for the recovery of lost
books from students, which is standard practice.
8. On the issue of jurisdiction, the respondents contend that the
Principal of the respective institution is the appointing authority
competent to scrutinize the pay of librarians. Therefore, the order was
issued within the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 4. The respondents
maintain that the recovery action is legal, justified, and essential to
compensate the department for the financial loss suffered.
9. Having heard the respective submissions and perused the
record, this Court finds that the core issue revolves around the legality
and procedural propriety of the impugned recovery orders.
10. Adverting to the factual matrix, it is an undisputed position on
record that the petitioner was transferred and relieved from
Government B.K.S.N. PG College, Shajapur on 29.06.2015. The
record categorically reflects that the petitioner made repeated attempts
between 2015 and 2019 to hand over the charge of the library, which
was not facilitated by the respondents. Ultimately, upon being
officially permitted, the petitioner handed over the complete charge of
42,747 books to Respondent No. 5 between February and July 2020.
This handover was duly acknowledged by Respondent No. 4 (the then
In-charge Principal) and Respondent No. 5, culminating in the
issuance of a 'No Dues Certificate' to the petitioner on 18.07.2020.
11. Once the competent authorities have verified the inventory,
accepted the handover of the charge, and issued a 'No Dues
Certificate', the matter attains finality with respect to the physical
custody of the assets. Reopening this issue after a lapse of more than a
year to allege a shortfall of 3,064 books is fundamentally arbitrary.
12. On the anvil of natural justice, it is a well-settled proposition of
law that any administrative order visiting an employee with adverse
civil or financial consequences must be preceded by a fair opportunity
of hearing. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 10.08.2021
was issued abruptly. No show-cause notice was served, no
explanation was sought, and no enquiry was conducted to establish
any negligence on the part of the petitioner. Imposing a financial
liability of Rs. 3,86,337/-, calculated unilaterally at one-and-a-half
times the cost of the books, without affording the petitioner an
opportunity to defend himself, is a flagrant violation of the audi
alteram partem rule.
13. Furthermore, under the service jurisprudence of the State, the
recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Government is classified as a
minor penalty under Rule 10(iii) of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The imposition of
such a penalty mandates strict adherence to the procedure prescribed
under Rule 16 of the said Rules. Turning to the question of
jurisdiction, the petitioner holds the status of a Class-I Gazetted
Officer. Under the Rules of 1966, the statutory power to impose a
penalty rests exclusively with the Appointing Authority or a specially
delegated Disciplinary Authority. It is evident from the service
records (Annexures P/26 and P/27) that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 hold
the substantive posts of Professor and Associate Professor,
respectively, and were merely officiating as In-charge Principals.
Therefore, the impugned orders issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
are coram non judice and suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction.
14. In view of the cumulative analysis, lack of jurisdictional
competence, absolute violation of the principles of natural justice,
statutory non-compliance with the Rules of 1966, and the prior
issuance of a valid 'No Dues Certificate'--the impugned action of the
respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and cannot withstand the scrutiny of
law.
15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed quashing the
impugned recovery order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure P/22) issued by
Respondent No. 3 and the consequential recovery order dated
23.09.2021 (Annexure P/25) issued by Respondent No. 2.
16. The respondents are strictly directed not to give effect to the
quashed orders. If any amount has already been recovered or withheld
from the petitioner's salary or retiral dues pursuant to the impugned
orders, the respondents shall refund the said amount to the petitioner
within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
17. The respondents are further directed to update the petitioner's
service record to reflect the quashing of these orders and to ensure that
the 'No Dues Certificate' dated 18.07.2020 is honored for all
administrative purposes.
18. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
19. Pending applications shall be disposed off accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
JUDGE
Rashmi*PS
